Originally reported by GeekWire. Original post date: March 24, 2020.
Background: AWS Executive Moves to Google Cloud
Amazon has settled a lawsuit against Philip Moyer, a former Amazon Web Services (AWS) sales executive who left the company in 2019 to join rival Google Cloud. The case drew significant attention in the tech industry as an example of how aggressively cloud providers defend proprietary knowledge and customer relationships through non-compete agreements.
Amazon hired Moyer in 2017. Before joining AWS, he had spent 15 years at Microsoft and served as chief executive of software-as-a-service companies Edgar Online and Cassiopae. After approximately two years at AWS, Moyer grew dissatisfied with what court documents described as a lack of growth potential and accepted a role at Google Cloud as Vice President of Sales for Healthcare and Life Sciences.
Amazon’s Lawsuit and Core Arguments
Amazon filed suit against Moyer in July 2019, arguing that his move to Google Cloud threatened the disclosure of Amazon’s highly confidential information and constituted a breach of his non-compete agreement. The company’s concern centered on the fact that Moyer’s expertise at AWS was in financial services — a sector in which Google Cloud was actively competing.
Moyer’s legal team countered that his new role — focused on healthcare and life sciences customers — served an entirely different customer base from his AWS work, and therefore did not violate the terms of his non-compete agreement.
Federal Judge Limits Moyer’s Role, Criticizes Amazon’s Policies
In October 2019, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez took a middle-ground approach: rather than fully enforcing or fully rejecting the non-compete, he placed significant limitations on Moyer’s activities at Google Cloud. Specifically, Moyer was prohibited from:
- Working on any financial services projects at Google Cloud
- Contacting any existing AWS customers
- Contacting any potential financial services customers
These restrictions were set to remain in place until the lawsuit was fully resolved or until Moyer’s non-compete agreement expired in November 2020. Notably, Judge Martinez also took the opportunity to criticize Amazon’s broader non-compete policies.
This outcome is consistent with Washington state law, which allows courts to “reform” — rather than void outright — a non-compete agreement, narrowing its scope to what is considered reasonable rather than simply invalidating it entirely.
Settlement and Dismissal
U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez dismissed the case on March 2, 2020, with no award of fees or costs to either party — a typical outcome in a negotiated settlement. Because the parties reached a private agreement, the specific terms of the settlement are not publicly disclosed. Amazon declined to comment on the decision.
Washington State’s Non-Compete Law: Key Provisions
The Moyer case played out against the backdrop of Washington state’s 2019 legislation tightening restrictions on non-compete enforcement. The law introduced several important limits:
- Salary threshold: A non-compete agreement is only enforceable if the employee earns more than $100,000 per year.
- Duration cap: Non-compete agreements cannot extend longer than 18 months.
- Court reformation: Courts may narrow — not just void — overly broad non-competes to a scope they deem reasonable.
Amazon reportedly lobbied to have the salary threshold lowered during the legislative process, a position that drew criticism given the company’s scale and the number of employees it could potentially subject to non-compete restrictions.
Broader Implications for Cloud Industry Talent Competition
The Moyer case is a high-profile example of a wider trend: as AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud compete intensely for enterprise customers, they are also competing fiercely for experienced sales and technical talent. Executives with deep relationships in sectors like financial services, healthcare, and government are particularly valuable — and particularly at risk of being subject to aggressive non-compete enforcement when they change employers.
Critics of non-compete agreements argue they suppress worker mobility, stifle innovation, and disproportionately benefit large corporations that can afford prolonged litigation. In sectors like cloud computing, where institutional knowledge and customer relationships are central to competitive advantage, these tensions are especially acute.
Google underscored its commitment to competing with Amazon in Seattle by opening a large new campus for its cloud division adjacent to Amazon’s Seattle headquarters — a visible statement of intent in the talent market as well as the enterprise sales market.
Key Takeaways for DevOps and Cloud Professionals
- Non-compete agreements at major cloud providers are enforceable under certain conditions, even when you move to a nominally different role or vertical at a competitor.
- Washington state law gives courts flexibility to narrow — not simply void — overly broad agreements, which can result in partial restrictions rather than a complete block on employment.
- The salary threshold ($100,000 as of the 2019 Washington law) and duration cap (18 months) are important limits to understand if you are employed in Washington state.
- The specific industry vertical or customer base you work with can be a deciding factor in how courts interpret whether a competing role truly conflicts with a prior non-compete.
- Settlement terms in these cases are typically confidential, so public outcomes may not reflect the full picture of what either party agreed to.